DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
Receipt Date 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/25/2025. Claims 1- 20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore;
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 15, the recitation of “ … a cryogen-contacting wall” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/25/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 15, the recitation of “ … a cryogen-contacting wall”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications
subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 15, applicant has added the limitation “ … a cryogen-contacting wall,” which is not described in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
In particular, the structure of the recited “ … a cryogen-contacting wall,” is not described in the claim or the specification.
The specification does not describe any kind cryogen-contacting wall.
Therefore, the claim fails the new matter requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 9, applicant has added the limitation “the inside surface of the skirt support is thinner than other portions of the panel,” which is not described in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
In particular, the structure of the recited “… the inside surface of the skirt support is thinner than other portions of the panel,” is not described in the claim or the specification. The specification from paragraph 0035-0037 and 0041-0042 do not describe any kind thinning to the skirt support nor do they recite any correlation to panels that do describe a portion that can be thinner than other portions of the panel.
Therefore, the claim fails the new matter requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected based off dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 15, the recitation of “… cryogen-contacting wall” renders the claim unclear.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - forms a wall - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 19, the recitation of “… an inside surface” renders the claim unclear.
It is unclear if applicant means to introduce “…an inside surface " or if they referring to the inside surface introduced in claim 15.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the inside surface - - for clarity.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected based off dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromath et al. (US4986495A), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1) and in view of Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stromath teaches a cryogenic cooling system [col. 1; lines 5-10 “a system for cooling”] comprising:
a tank [10] having an inside surface [col. 3; lines 48-58; see also figs. 1a and 5 where 32 has an inside surface which faces the cryogenic liquid] and an outside surface [col. 3; lines 48-58; see also figs. 1a and 5 where 32 has outside surface which faces away from the cryogenic liquid], the inside surface [32 facing cryogenic liquid] configured to contain a cryogenic fluid [col. 3; lines 48-58 “Liquid hydrogen” corresponds to a cryogenic fluid]; and
at least one cooling channel [14] integrated into individual panels [10; col. 3; lines 48-58 “integral” and “primary panel”], wherein the at least one cooling channel [14] is on the outside surface of the tank [14; abstract “outside surface”],
the at least one cooling channel [14] is configured to receive and carry a cooling fluid [col. 4; lines 1-8 “evacuated” corresponds to receive and carry “suitable means” corresponds to a cooling fluid], and
each panel [32] between the cooling channel [14] and the inside surface [32 facing cryogenic liquid] forms a wall thermally coupled to the cooling channel [col. 3; lines 48-58; where there is a typo fig. 1a clearly illustrates the tank is (10) and “insulation” demonstrating that they are thermally coupled to the channels forming a wall].
Stromath does not explicitly teach at least one cooling channel integrated into individual panels that are welded together to form the tank, the at least one cooling channel is oriented along the largest dimension of each of the panels, each of the panels is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the at least one cooling channel, and a portion of each of the panels between the cooling channel and an inside surface of the tank is thinner than other portions of the panel.
However, Morin teaches at least one cooling channel [110 corresponding to 14 of Stromath] integrated [0009-0010 “single extruded piece” corresponds to integrated] into individual panels [260 corresponding to 32 of Stromath] that are welded together [fig. 14; 0061 “weld panels together”] to form the tank [266 corresponding to 10 of Stromath],
the at least one cooling channel [110] is oriented along the largest dimension of each of the panels [0010 “longitudinal axis”], each of the panels [260] is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the at least one cooling channel [0009-0010 “single extruded piece”, “material comprises substantially aluminum” and “fluid channel”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Stromath to have at least one cooling channel integrated into individual panels that are welded together to form the tank, the at least one cooling channel is oriented along the largest dimension of each of the panels, each of the panels is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the at least one cooling channel, in view of the teachings of Morin where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system with extruded aluminum sheet that integrate the cooling channels which meets the thermal requirements, selected material and technological advances [0055].
Further, Jessen teaches a portion [see image I below of Jessen fig. 3] of each panel [7’ corresponding to 260 of Morin] between the at least one cooling channel [12’ corresponding to 110 of Morin] and the inside surface [image I below] is thinner than other portions of the panel [see image I below where a portion is thinner than the thickness of panel ] so that the inside surface [see Image I below] forms a wall [see fig. 2 showing where the inside surface forms a wall with (8)] that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel [0052”heat transfer” as seen in fig. 7b].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Stromath teaching with Jessen by combining a portion of each panel between the at least one cooling channel and the inside surface is thinner than other portions of the panel so that the inside surface forms a wall that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system where a portion of each panel is thinner than other portions of the panel and the inside surface forms a wall that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel which reduces the total tube length [0054].
PNG
media_image1.png
335
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Image I; created from fig. 3 of Jessen)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Morin teaches wherein each of the panels [260] has a cross-section having a concave surface [fig. 13 showing a concave surface] that comprises a portion [where a portion is the concaved panel; fig. 13] of the inside surface [Stromath; 32 facing cryogenic liquid] of the tank [Stromath ; 10].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Morin teaches wherein at least some of the panels are welded to one another by friction stir welding (FSW) [0059-0060 “bond fixedly joining the two thermal-interaction sheets”] to form a group of panels [fig. 13 showing multiple panels] that form at least a portion of the tank [Stromath ; 10].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Morin teaches wherein at a given circular cross-section [0047 “circular cross-sectional profile”] of the tank [Stromath; 10],
a circumferential distance between adjacent cooling channels [fig. 15 where circumferential distance is the distance between adjacent cooling channels] of respective adjacent panels [260] varies around the circumference of the tank [Stromath; 10] to accommodate different cooling rates at different parts of the tank [Morin; 0069 “preferably be varied” which allows specific design and performance requirements to be met].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Jessen teaches wherein each of the panels [7’] comprises the at least one cooling channel [12’] and the extruded aluminum sheet [Morin; single extruded piece] having a back side [which is the same as the inside surface see Image I above] being a portion [see image I above] of the inside surface [Stromath; 32] of the tank [Stromath; 10],
wherein a portion of the extruded aluminum sheet [Morin; at least some of a single extruded piece] between the at least one cooling channel [12’] and the back side [which is the same as the inside surface see Image I above] is substantially thinner than other portions of the extruded aluminum sheet [see image I below where a portion is thinner than the thickness of panel].
Modified Stromath does not explicitly teach pressure exerted by cryogenic fluid on the back side places the thinner portion in compression and a wall of the cooling channel in tension to maintain structural integrity of the tank wall.
However, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where modified Stromath teaches the back side [Jessen; which is the same as the inside surface see Image I above], the thinner portion [Jessen; see image I below where a portion is thinner than the thickness of panel], a wall [Jessen; where 12’ has a wall surrounding it which includes thickness of panel see image I above], the cooling channel [Jessen; 12’] and the tank wall [Stromath; 10].
The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 15, Stromath teaches a method for cryogenic cooling [col. 1; lines 5-10 “a structure for cooling”], the method [structure for cooling] comprising:
circulating a cooling fluid [col. 4; lines 1-8 “evacuated” corresponds to circulating “suitable means” corresponds to a cooling fluid ] through cooling channels [14; col. 3; lines 63-66] that are integrated with a cryogenic tank [10; col. 3; lines 48-58 “integral”],
wherein the cryogenic tank [10] comprises panels [col. 3; lines 48-58 “panel”], which integrates each of the cooling channels [14] as part of the panels [32] [col.3; lines 47-58 where tubes is 14, integral is integrates and “panel”], and
the cooling channels [14] are located outside of the cryogenic tank [col. 2; lines 38-42 where tubes is 14], and
the panels [32] between the cooling channel [14] and an inside surface [col. 3; lines 48-58; see also figs. 1a and 5 where 32 has an inside surface which faces the cryogenic liquid] of the tank [10] where the inside surface [32 facing cryogenic liquid] forms a wall thermally coupled to the cooling channel [col. 3; lines 48-58; where there is a typo fig. 1a clearly illustrates the tank is (10) and “insulation” demonstrating that they are thermally coupled to the channels forming a wall ].
Stromath does not explicitly teach cooling channels that are integrated with a cryogenic tank by an extrusion process, comprises panels formed by the extrusion process, the panels are adjoined to one another by friction surface welding (FSW), and a portion of each of the panels between the cooling channel and an inside surface of the tank is thinner than other portions of the panel.
However, Morin teaches cooling channels [110 corresponding to 14 of Stromath] that are integrated with a cryogenic tank [266 corresponding to 10 of Stromath] by an extrusion process, comprises panels [260 corresponding to 32 of Stromath] formed by the extrusion process [0009-0010 “single extruded piece”], the panels [260] are adjoined to one another by friction surface welding (FSW) [fig. 14; 0061 “FSW” “weld panels together”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stromath to have cooling channels that are integrated with a cryogenic tank by an extrusion process, comprises panels formed by the extrusion process, the panels are adjoined to one another by friction surface welding (FSW) in view of the teachings of Morin where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling method with extruded aluminum sheet that integrate the cooling channels which meets the thermal requirements, selected material and technological advances [0055].
Further, Jessen teaches a portion [see image I above of Jessen fig. 3] of each panel [7’ corresponding to 260 of Morin] between the at least one cooling channel [12’ corresponding to 110 of Morin] and the inside surface [image I above] is thinner than other portions of the panel [see image I above where a portion is thinner than the thickness of panel] so that the inside surface [see Image I above] forms a wall [see fig. 2 showing where the inside surface forms a wall with (8)] that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel [0052”heat transfer” as seen in fig. 7b].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Stromath teaching with Jessen by combining a portion of each panel between the at least one cooling channel and the inside surface is thinner than other portions of the panel so that the inside surface forms a wall that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system where a portion of each panel is thinner than other portions of the panel and the inside surface forms a wall that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel which reduces the total tube length [0054].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Stromath teaches the method of claim 15 and Morin teaches wherein each of the panels [260] is made of an extruded aluminum sheet [0056 “ aluminum” and “extrusion-forming processes”] that integrates one of the cooling channels [110; 0085 “at least one fluid channel”].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Stromath teaches the method of claim 15 and Morin teaches wherein each of the panels [260] has a cross-section having a concave surface [fig. 13 showing a concave surface] that comprises a portion [where a portion is the concaved panel; fig. 13] of the inside surface [Stromath; 32 facing cryogenic liquid]of the cryogenic tank [Stromath ; 10].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Stromath teaches the method of claim 15 and Morin teaches wherein at a given circular cross-section [0047 “circular cross-sectional profile”] of the cryogenic tank [Stromath; 10],
a circumferential distance between adjacent cooling channels [fig. 15 where circumferential distance is the distance between adjacent cooling channels] of respective adjacent panels [260] varies around the circumference of the tank [Stromath; 10] to accommodate different cooling rates at different parts of the tank [Morin; 0069 “preferably be varied” which allows specific design and performance requirements to be met].
Claim 2, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromath et al. (US4986495A), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1), Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) and in view of Androulakis (US4140073A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Stromath teaches the cooling fluid [cryogenic liquid fuel] and the tank [10].
Modified Stromath does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling fluid comprises a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank.
However, Androulakis teaches wherein the cooling fluid comprises a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank [col. 4; lines 5-12 “boil- off” which corresponds to a gas and vapor and “cryogenic fluid” where 20 corresponds to 10 of Stromath].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Stromath to have the cooling fluid comprising a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank in view of the teachings of Androulakis where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system that uses boil-off vapor as the cooling fluid where boil-off can be utilized as a refrigerant to control its loss [col. 2; lines 59-60].
Claim 3, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromath et al. (US4986495A), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1), Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) and in view of Watts et al. (US2018/0016130A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 1 and Morin teaches the at least one cooling channel [110].
Modified Stromath does not explicitly teach a cryogenic helium tank connected to the at least one cooling channel, wherein the cooling fluid comprises helium.
However, Watts teaches a cryogenic helium tank [502; fig. 5] connected to the at least one cooling channel [fig. 5; 0038 in fluid communication corresponds to directing and connecting the cooling channels where the cooling channels correspond to 110 of Morin], wherein the cooling fluid comprises helium [fig. 5; 0038; where 504 is helium].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of modified Stromath to have a cryogenic helium tank connected to the at least one cooling channel, wherein the cooling fluid comprises helium in view of the teachings of Watts where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system that incorporates a helium tank which helps keep the cryogenic tank contents cool and reduces boil-off gases [0015].
Claim(s) 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stromath et al. (US4986495A), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1), Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) and in view of Jacobson et al. (US20220356994A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Stromath teaches the cryogenic cooling system of claim 5 and Morin teaches wherein a terminus [0018 “end”] of the largest dimension [longitudinal axis] of each of the panels [260], the group of panels [fig. 13 having multiple panels (260)] and a portion the tank [Stromath: 10 where a portion is some of the tank].
Modified Stromath does not explicitly teach each of the panels is tapered so that the group of panels accommodate a conic or spherical shape of a portion of the tank.
However, Jacobson teaches each of the panels [112b corresponding to 260] is tapered [fig. 1F where the plate is clearly tapered on the end] so that the group of panels [0031; “plates” indicating more than one 112b which corresponds to fig. 13 of Morin]accommodate a conic or spherical shape [0032 where 112b would be welded to itself which would form a conic or spherical shape] of a portion of the tank [where some of 100 corresponds to a portion and corresponding to 10 of Stromath].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Stromath teaching with Jacobson by combining each of the panels is tapered so that the group of panels accommodate a conic or spherical shape of a portion of the tank where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system with tapered panels which accommodates a conic or spherical shape of a portion of the tank which allows for more tank design options and shapes [0019].
Claim(s) 9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US3321159A), Badie (US6802671B1), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1) and in view of Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Jackson teaches a cryogenic cooling system [col. 1; lines 5-10; fig. 5] comprising:
a tank [85; fig. 5] having an inside surface [fig. 5 where clearly there is an inside surface] and an outside surface [fig. 5 were clearly there is an outside surface of the tank], the inside surface [fig. 5] configured to contain a cryogenic fluid [col. 6; lines 42-50 “cryogenic fuel”];
Jackson does not explicitly teach a skirt support concentrically surrounding at least a portion of the tank and in thermal contact with the tank, wherein the skirt support has an inside surface and an outside surface, the inside surface of the skirt support facing the outside surface of the tank; and
a cooling channel integrated into individual panels that are welded together to form the skirt support, wherein the cooling channel is on the outside surface of the skirt support, the cooling channel is oriented along the largest dimension of the panels, the cooling channel is configured to receive and carry a cooling fluid, and each of the panels is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the cooling channels, and a portion of each panel between the cooling channel and the inside surface of the skirt support is thinner than other portions of the panel so that the inside surface of the skirt support forms a cryogen-contacting wall thermally coupled to the cooling channel.
However, Badie teaches a skirt support [26; abstract] concentrically surrounding at least a portion of the tank [fig. 3] and in thermal contact with the tank [col.5 ; lines 13-20 “heat conductive material” corresponds to in thermal contact], wherein the skirt support [26] has an inside surface [27] and an outside surface [fig. 3 clearly demonstrating an outside surface that is not in direct contact with the tank], the inside surface of the skirt support facing the outside surface [15 corresponding to the outside surface of Jackson] of the tank [col. 5; lines 13-18]; and
a cooling channel integrated [28; fig. 4] into individual panels [26a] that are welded [col. 7; lines 5-9] together to form the skirt support [fig. 4], wherein the cooling channel [28] is on the outside surface of the skirt support [fig. 3 clearly showing 28 on the outside surface of the skirt support], the cooling channel [28] is oriented along the largest dimension of the panels [col. 5; lines 32-36; fig. 2 showing how (28) is oriented on the panels], the cooling channel [28] is configured to receive and carry a cooling fluid [col. 5; lines 29-49 “coolant fluid”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jackson to have a skirt support concentrically surrounding at least a portion of the tank and in thermal contact with the tank, wherein the skirt support has an inside surface and an outside surface, the inside surface of the skirt support facing the outside surface of the tank; and
a cooling channel integrated into individual panels that are welded together to form the skirt support, wherein the cooling channel is on the outside surface of the skirt support, the cooling channel is oriented along the largest dimension of the panels, the cooling channel is configured to receive and carry a cooling fluid in view of the teachings of Badie where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system with a support skirt and supporting structure which allow easy servicing of faulty parts using remote handling [col. 6; lines 12-17].
Further, Morin teaches each of the panels [260 corresponding to 26a of Badie] is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the cooling channels [110; 0009-0010 “single extruded piece”, “material comprises substantially aluminum” and “fluid channel”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of the modified Jackson to have each of the panels is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the cooling channels in view of the teachings of Morin a simple substitution of segments 26a for extruded aluminum sheet would give the system the necessary each of the panels is made of an extruded aluminum sheet that integrates the cooling channels. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are yielded,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system with extruded aluminum sheet that integrate the cooling channels which meets the thermal requirements, selected material and technological advances [0055].
Lastly, Jessen teaches a portion [see image I above of Jessen fig. 3] of each panel [7’ corresponding to 260 of Morin] between the at least one cooling channel [12’ corresponding to 110 of Morin] and the inside surface [image I above] of the support skirt [0038 “wrapped around a tank” corresponds to 26 of Badie] is thinner than other portions of the panel [see image I above where a portion is thinner than the thickness of panel ] so that the inside surface [see Image I above] forms a wall [see fig. 2 showing where the inside surface forms a wall with (8)] that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel [0052”heat transfer” as seen in fig. 7b].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Stromath teaching with Jessen by combining a portion of each of the panels between the cooling channel and an inside surface of the tank is thinner than other portions of the panel so that the inside surface forms a cryogen-contacting wall thermally coupled to the cooling channel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system where a portion of each panel is thinner than other portions of the panel and the inside surface forms a wall that is thermally coupled to the cooling channel which reduces the total tube length [0054].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 9 above and Badie teaches wherein each of the panels [26a] has a cross-section having a concave surface [fig. 4 clearly showing a cross-section having a concave surface] that comprises a portion of the inside surface [27 “not show in fig. 4” see fig. 3 for reference] of the skirt support [26].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 9 above and Morin teaches wherein at least some of the panels are welded to one another by friction stir welding (FSW) [0059-0060 “bond fixedly joining the two thermal-interaction sheets”] to form a group of panels that form at least a portion of the skirt support [Badie; fig. 4 showing a group of panels forming the skirt support].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 9 above and Morin teaches wherein at a given circular cross-section [Badie; fig. 4] of the tank [Jackson; 85], a circumferential distance between adjacent cooling channels [Badie; 28] of respective adjacent panels [Badie 26a] varies around the circumference of the tank [Jackson; 85] to accommodate different cooling rates at different parts of the skirt support [Morin; 0069 “preferably be varied” which allows specific design and performance requirements to be met].
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US3321159A), Badie (US6802671B1), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1), Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) and in view of Androulakis (US4140073A).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Jackson teaches the system of claim 9 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling fluid comprises a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank.
However, Androulakis teaches wherein the cooling fluid comprises a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank [col. 4; lines 5-12 “boil- off” which corresponds to a gas and vapor and “cryogenic fluid” where 20 corresponds to 85 of Jackson].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Modified Jackson to have the cooling fluid comprising a gas that is boil-off vapor of the cryogenic fluid in the tank in view of the teachings of Androulakis where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system that uses boil-off vapor as the cooling fluid where boil-off can be utilized as a refrigerant to control its loss [col. 2; lines 59-60].
Regarding Claim 16 modified Jackson teaches the method of claim 15 above and Jackson teaches the cryogenic tank [85].
Modified Jackson does not explicitly teach collecting a gas that is boil-off vapor of cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic tank; and directing the gas into the cooling channels, wherein the cooling fluid comprises the gas.
However, Androulakis teaches collecting a gas that is boil-off vapor of cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic tank [col. 4; lines 5-12 “cryogenic fluid” and where 20 corresponds to 85 of Jackson]; and
directing the gas into the cooling channels, wherein the cooling fluid comprises the gas [col. 4; lines 5-12 “boil- off” which corresponds to a gas and vapor].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Jackson to have the collecting a gas that is boil-off vapor of cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic tank; and directing the gas into the cooling channels, wherein the cooling fluid comprises the gas in view of the teachings of Androulakis where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling method that uses boil-off vapor as the cooling fluid where boil-off can be utilized as a refrigerant to control its loss [col. 2; lines 59-60].
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US3321159A), Badie (US6802671B1), Morin et al. (US20110277959A1), Androulakis (US4140073A), Jessen et al (US2025/0123035A1) and in view of Watts et al. (US2018/0016130A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Jackson teaches the invention of claim 9 above.
Modified Jackson does not explicitly teach a cryogenic helium tank, wherein the cooling fluid comprises helium.
However, Watts teaches the cooling fluid comprises helium [fig. 5; 0038; where 504 is helium].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of modified Jackson to have a cryogenic helium tank connected to at least one cooling channel wherein the cooling fluid comprises helium in view of the teachings of Watts where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling system that incorporates a helium tank which helps keep the cryogenic tank contents cool and reduces boil-off gases which reduces boil-off gas [0015].
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Jackson teaches the method of claim 15 above and Badie teaches the cooling channels [28].
Modified Jackson does not explicitly teach directing helium into the cooling channels from a cryogenic helium tank connected to the cooling channels, wherein the cooling fluid comprises the helium.
However, Watts teaches directing helium [0016 “helium”] into the cooling channels [ Fig. 5; 514 and 516 corresponding to 28 of Badie] from a cryogenic helium tank [502; fig. 5] connected to the cooling channels [fig. 5; 0038 in fluid communication corresponds to directing and connecting the cooling channels], wherein the cooling fluid comprises the helium [0038 “504” see 0016 also].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of modified Jackson to have directing helium into the cooling channels from a cryogenic helium tank connected to the cooling channels, wherein the cooling fluid comprises the helium in view of the teachings of Watts where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a cryogenic cooling method that incorporates a helium tank which directs helium into the cooling channels helping to keep the cryogenic tank contents cool and reduce boil-off gases which reduces boil-off gas [0015].
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 7, 9 and 11 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to amended claim(s) filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 under 35 USC § 103 the argument of “Morin does not teach or suggest an asymmetric extrusion configuration in which the cryogen-contacting wall is deliberately thinned to enhance thermal coupling” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Due to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 above.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 08:30AM-06:30PM (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763